Re: ZFS performance (was: Re: deduplicating file systems: VDO withDebian?)
On Fri, 2022-11-11 at 08:01 +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 07:15:07AM +0100, hw wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-11-10 at 23:05 -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Why would anyone use SSDs for backups? They're way too expensive for that.
>
> Possibly.
>
> > So far, the failure rate with SSDs has been not any better than the failure
> > rate
> > of hard disks. Considering that SSDs are supposed to fail less, the
> > experience
> > with them is pretty bad.
>
> You keep pulling things out of whatever (thin air, it seems).
That's more like what you're doing. In my case, it's my own experience.
> Here's a report
> by folks who do lots of HDDs and SDDs:
>
> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-hard-drive-stats-q1-2021/
Backblaze does all kinds of things.
> The gist, for disks playing similar roles (they don't use yet SSDs for bulk
> storage, because of the costs): 2/1518 failures for SSDs, 44/1669 for HDDs.
>
> I'll leave the maths as an exercise to the reader.
Numbers never show you the real picture, especially not statistical ones. You
even say it yourself that the different types of disks were used for different
purposes. That makes your numbers meaningless.
Out of cruiosity, what do these numbers look like in something like survivours
per TB? Those numbers will probably show a very different picture, won't they.
And when even Backblaze doesn't use SSDs for backup storage because they're
expensive, then why would you suggest or assume that anyone do or does that?
Reply to: